If you would like to register, please email 2 preferred usernames to oceanfisher@gmail.com. You will be registered and sent instructions.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I apologize for my clumsy attempts to voice the legal or ethical arguments against NIH funding of embryonic stem cell research. Let me try again. As I understand it, Judge Lambert is basing his decision on the Dickey-Wicker amendment. In 2009 and subsequent years, this amendment was appended to the appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services. It stated

SEC. 509.

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--

the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

By prohibiting NIH funding to study embryonic stem cells that have already been derived and with non-federal funds, Judge Lambert has gone well beyond the statute. He stated that the research "clearly violates" the Dickey-Wicker amendment, listed above. Judge Lamberth believes that research on embryonic stem cells, even those derived before the ban by President George W. Bush and derived with non-Federal funding, is illegal.

The research itself clearly does not kill or harm embryos. Judge Lamberth is arguing that studies of the cells to the procedure of deriving the cells. This is simply not true. To illustrate how irrational this argument is, I gave the example of a county coroner that is doing an autopsy of the body of a murdered man. The coroner is not responsible the murder.

Judge Lamberth's argument is similar to one that is sometimes made by ethicists to suggest that it is unethical to use products of an unethical procedure. For example, some ethicists suggest that it is unethical to use information from medical experiments done by Nazis in concentration camps. But this argument is not implicit in the law.

The Dickey-Wicker amendment forbids "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death..." It does not forbid research on cells derived from those embryos. Those embryos are already dead. Studying them will not destroy, discard, or knowingly subject to risk of injury or death.

Ethicists often include intent and consequence in assessing culpability. In religious and legal ethics, intent is an important part of culpability. Likewise, consequences may be important. if research on embryonic stem cells resulted in killing of more embryos, even though the killing was not funded by federal dollars, one can argue that the research is killing the embryos.

There is no intent to fund research to kill or hurt embryos in any way. NIH is seeking to fund studies of embryonic stem cells that have been derived for reasons that are completely unrelated to research. For example, it forbids research on cells derived from embryos that are created for the purpose of providing cells. The cells must come from embryos created for procreation.

The research is will not intentionally result in the killing of more embryos. In fact, one can argue that by allowing NIH to fund studies of already derived embryonic stem cell lines, NIH would be discouraging the killing of more embryos to derive more cell lines. It can be fairly argued that the prohibition of embryonic stem cell research has not saved a single embryo to date.

If the true interest of opponents of stem cell research is to prevent or reduce killing of embryos, they should be focusing their attention on reducing the number of eggs being fertilized in IVF clinics. A similar argument can be made concerning opponents of animal research. If their true interest is to prevent or reduce killing of animals, they should be focusing their attention on reducing eating of meat.

Allowing studies of existing embryonic stem cell lines will not increase the use of embryos. Banning studies of embryonic stem cells has not and will not save any embryos. Such bans may actually encourage the use of fetal and embryonic cells because it cuts off an important future supply of stem cells. Judge Lamberth is saying that studying the cells is equivalent to harming the embryo. This is not true legally or ethically.

MSC stem cell

My boyfriend is a C5 C6 quad who has been that way for 5 years. 3 years ago he had a stem cell surgery in Portugal with Dr. Lima involving his olfactory cells. He got no improvement. I live in Louisiana and heard a story on the news about an Iraq war veteran that was receiving a newly FDA approved therapy right where I live. My boyfriend and I have met with doctor and are seriously considering trying the procedure involving injection of MSC cells from bone marrow that have been seperated, purified and multiplied. Following is an article about it. Do you have any opinions on this????

Wise, thank you for your explanation of the whole argument agaisnt fudning of stem cell reaearch, embryonic stem cell research, and the ruling by Judge Lambrythe. Hopefully, no matter what happens here in the US, the research will continue in the rest of the world. Hopefully your study and that of Geron's and others will be so successful that the cry for research with embryonic cells will shout out the supposed anti research.

My boyfriend is a C5 C6 quad who has been that way for 5 years. 3 years ago he had a stem cell surgery in Portugal with Dr. Lima involving his olfactory cells. He got no improvement. I live in Louisiana and heard a story on the news about an Iraq war veteran that was receiving a newly FDA approved therapy right where I live. My boyfriend and I have met with doctor and are seriously considering trying the procedure involving injection of MSC cells from bone marrow that have been seperated, purified and multiplied. Following is an article about it. Do you have any opinions on this????